No DWP is in denial, the Errol Graham case has caused much concern
Something is amiss with the procedures, Capita and the PIP Assessments seem to go against what a claimant's doctors say quite often, as do the UC Work Capability Assessments
1. The Claimant claims £9,240.52 for monies due from the Defendant.
2. This debt was pursuant to a regulated agreement(s) between the Defendant and The Student Loans Company Limited. Each agreement had an individual account number as follows: 01xxxxxxxx, 00xxxxxxx, 97xxxxxxx, 96xxxxxxx.
3. The Defendant failed to make payments as per the terms resulting in the agreement(s) being terminated.
Notice of such is served by a Default or Termination Notice subject to the terms of the agreement(s).
4. The debt was assigned to the Claimant on 22/11/2013, with a notice provided to the Defendant.
A new master reference number xxxxxxxxxxxxx was also applied upon assignment.
5. The Claimant has complied with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims
The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR 16.5(3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.
1. Paragraph 1 2 is noted and denied accepted . I have had financial dealings with The Student Loans company in the past. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant who has not complied with my requests for further information.
2. Paragraph 2 is noted and accepted. I did take out 4 student loans with the Student Loans Company.
2. Paragraph 3 is noted and denied. The Defendant never agreed to make payments to the Claimant, terms of the original Student Loans Agreement have been adhered to and thus repayments of loans are not due. The Claimant is put to strict proof that an agreement(s) to make payments was made and a breach of agreement(s) occurred. Paragraph 3 is denied as The Defendant maintains that a default notices were never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof that default notices were issued to, and received by the Defendant
3. Paragraphs1 & 4 are denied.The annual income of the Defendant has never exceeded the published limits for deferral since graduating in XXXX.
The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly provided by the Claimant pursuant to the LoP Act 1925.
4. On receipt of this claim I requested (Royal Mail signed for) on 14/02/2020 a CPR 31.14 from the Claimant's solicitor and a section 77 CCA from the Claimant, to which both have failed to respond to, It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant;
the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of credit agreement/assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31.14, and remains in default of my section 77 CCA Request,
therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:
(a) Show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement(s)
(b) Show how the Defendant is in breach of agreement(s)
(c) Show why the Claimant has terminated agreement(s) show the nature of breach and service of Default Notices and subsequent Notice of Sums in Arrears in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act
(d) Show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for and
(e) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.
5. On receipt of this claim I requested (Royal Mail signed for) on 14/02/2020 a CPR 31.14 from the Claimant's solicitor and a section 77 CCA from the Claimant, for copies of the documents referred to within the Claimant’s particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date the Claimant has failed to comply to my section 77 requests and their solicitors, Drydens Limited, have refused my CPR 31.14 request.
6. The Defendant has supplied the Claimant with a deferment letter and evidence every year that their income is below the threshold for repayments, by way of Royal Mail signed for and proof of postage has been kept. As per Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.
7. The Defendant has done everything required of them to qualify for deferment as per the original agreement(s) with The Student Loans company. The Claimant has only once acknowledged a deferment letter on 16 September 2014 whereupon they granted their request to defer repayments for that year.
On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82 A of the consumer credit Act 1974.
8.The Defendant therefore fails to see how they are in breach of any agreement(s) and deny the Claimant's claim of £9,240.52 or any other sum, or relief of any kind. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief
delete the red
add the blue.
Is this better?
Bristol Civic Justice Centre
Claimant name and address
xx xxxxxx xxxx
Defendants name and address
Nissan Motor (GB) Limited, The Rivers Office Park, Denham Way, Maple Cross, Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, WD3 9YS.
Brief details of claim
Particulars of claim
1. The Defendant is a Data Controller within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 2018 and is responsible for the processing of data of which the Claimant is a Subject.
2. This claim is in relation to three breaches of the Data Protection Act (2018) by the Defendant.
(a) Failure to comply with the statutory time limit.
(b) The Defendants data disclosure was incomplete.
(c) The Defendant sent the data to an address which was not the address of the
Claimant data Subject.
3. The Defendant has failed to comply with the statutory time limit and is therefore in breach of the Data Protection Act (2018).
(a) On 09 January 2020, the Claimant made a request for to the Defendant for a statutory data disclosure. The statutory timeframe for compliance was 10 February 2020.
4. The Defendants data disclosure is incomplete.
(a) The Defendant has provided data disclosure on 25 February 2020. However, the data disclosure that has been provided by the Defendant is incomplete.
5. The Defendant sent the disclosure to an address that was not the Claimant’s.
(a) The Claimant provided the Defendant with the correct address to send the Subject Access Request to on 10 January 2020 and again on 19 February 2020.
6. The Claimant has made a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) asking for a statutory assessment to be carried out. The ICO has offered a preliminary view that the Defendant has breached their statutory duty in failing to comply with the statutory time limit.
7. By virtue of the Defendant’s failure to comply with the Subject Access Request the Claimant has suffered distress.
Shocking pictures reveal ‘disgusting’ conditions inside Hermes depot where workers ‘feel like slaves’. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/419726-shocking-pictures-reveal-%E2%80%98disgusting%E2%80%99-conditions-inside-hermes-depot-where-workers-%E2%80%98feel-like-slaves%E2%80%99/
Euro Car Parks issued this ticket to the police in Devon and Cornwall. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/419522-can-anyone-identify-the-parking-company-which-issued-this-ticket-to-the-police-in-devon-and-cornwall/